Caswell v. Ahtna, Inc.

PROPERTY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Kristiana Olson

In Caswell v. Ahtna, Inc., 511 P.3d 193 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a miner’s conflict with his corporate landowner fell within the scope of forcible entry and detainer (FED) proceedings, despite the miner’s asserted claims to property and a disputed lease. (Id. at 198). At the conclusion of the miner’s 20-year lease with the landowner, he sent a check prepaying the following year but without express notice to extend as required by the lease. (Id. at 195). The landowner accepted the check, but five months later sued for breach of lease and made a FED claim. (Id.). The court granted the landowner’s FED claim at its hearing almost a year later. (Id.). The miner argued on appeal, among other claims, that FED was not appropriate because the dispute was too complex, and he needed discovery. (Id.). The supreme court explained that Alaska’s FED rule allows parties to raise “substantial rights and significant issues,” despite the expedited timeline. (Id. at 197). Under this timeline, normal discovery cannot be conducted. (Id. at 199). Therefore, the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery, and the miner could have requested reconsideration on the discovery issue when the hearing was scheduled for almost a year away. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a miner’s conflict with his corporate landowner fell within the scope of forcible entry and detainer (FED) proceedings, despite the miner’s asserted claims to property and a disputed lease. (Id. at 198).

 

Caswell v. Ahtna, Inc.

PROPERTY LAW

Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Kristiana Olson

In Caswell v. Ahtna, Inc., 511 P.3d 193 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that a miner’s conflict with his corporate landowner fell within the scope of forcible entry and detainer (FED) proceedings, despite the miner’s asserted claims to property and a disputed lease. (Id. at 198). At the conclusion of the miner’s 20-year lease with the landowner, he sent a check prepaying the following year but without express notice to extend as required by the lease. (Id. at 195). The landowner accepted the check, but five months later sued for breach of lease and made a FED claim. (Id.). The court granted the landowner’s FED claim at its hearing almost a year later. (Id.). The miner argued on appeal, among other claims, that FED was not appropriate because the dispute was too complex, and he needed discovery. (Id.). The supreme court explained that Alaska’s FED rule allows parties to raise “substantial rights and significant issues,” despite the expedited timeline. (Id. at 197). Under this timeline, normal discovery cannot be conducted. (Id. at 199). Therefore, the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery, and the miner could have requested reconsideration on the discovery issue when the hearing was scheduled for almost a year away. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a miner’s conflict with his corporate landowner fell within the scope of forcible entry and detainer (FED) proceedings, despite the miner’s asserted claims to property and a disputed lease. (Id. at 198).